Originally Posted by Jim McC
I hate the wide formats, even 2.35:1. I wish all HD content was 16:9. Why settle for a smaller image?
The wide formats are actually larger
than 16:9, and that's the problem. Your 16:9 TV isn't big enough so you have to either chop the sides off, or shrink the image to fit.
With a 21:9 native display, 21:9 content (the largest format) fills the display, and the smaller 16:9 and 4:3 formats are pillarboxed. (or stretched, displayed side-by-side etc.)
It actually makes a lot more sense to do it this way, the only problem is that there are no anamorphic Blu-rays, so 21:9 content needs to be scaled up to 2560x1080.
Originally Posted by mailiang
I don't mind occasionally watching ultra wide screen movies with black bars. However, since most program content is currently 16:9, you would be looking at side bars most of the time.
Most of the time? The only time I have a 16:9 image is with my PC running on my TV, and a PC would fill the screen with a 21:9 display too. Most of the time I have letterboxing. Unfortunately none of the 21:9 displays on the market were all that good.
Perhaps there is hope with 4K OLED. If they choose to go with an upscaled image as they currently do, 4K should help minimize the artifacting from that.
But they could always go with 3840x1620 and use 1:1 mapping with letterboxed sources, scaling down 16:9 ones. (as they are less important on a 21:9 panel)
I don't really see much of a future for 21:9 displays though. Too bad they didn't make the switch to 21:9 being the standard when introducing 4K.